|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
And this is where we get down to the finnicky detail, which
"was bogging us down so we skipped that"
It's a fact Samsung looked at the iPhone, any competitor would.
It's a fact they notes all the weaknesses of their own products
and made a list of how Apple was doing it better. Now the question
is did they blindly outright ruthless copy Apple's features? Or
did they make improvements to their own features to move
them towards an appearance of similarity with Apple's?
I suspect the only people who could answer those questions are those
who are qualified (oxymoron warning) to issue the patents,
design or utility. How many of the patents in suit were submitted for
re-examination before trial? By whom? It should be possible to
submit a piece of "art" to USPTO for a ruling on whether or not
it falls within a particular patent. An application fee of a year's
salary (including admin overheads) for the examiner would not
be outrageous, and would be significantly cheaper than existing
court procedures.
Yes, the number of adverse rulings referred back into the court
system, -after- examination by the authority qualified and
appointed for the task, might, just might induce an examination
and overhaul of USPTO and the whole patent system.
No, I'm not holding my breath.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
